Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight the House leadership is making a second attempt at passing its 2005 budget reconciliation bill. This is still the wrong bill at the wrong time for America, and I will oppose it. We have heard a host of arguments from the majority in support of this bill, which will cut vital Federal programs by approximately $50 billion over 5 years. Some have made the case that higher deficits hurt our Nation's economy. I agree, but although this bill is titled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, it will do nothing to ease our deficit situation. H.R. 4241 is part of a larger strategy by the House leadership resolution that calls for a total of $106 billion in additional tax cuts. This strategy includes $70 billion in reconciled tax cuts and $36 billion in unreconciled tax cuts. The spending cuts in this bill are the initial step. The majority intends to follow tonight's vote with a tax cut bill. After the tax cuts are passed and in place, there will no funds available to pay for hurricane relief. In the end, the House leadership's charade will not reduce the deficit; it will make the deficit even larger than it is today. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated the land and the lives of so many on the gulf coast, many lawmakers said they had a newfound understanding of the extent and depth of poverty in America. They also said that the photographs from New Orleans, particularly those taken at the Superdome and the Convention Center, had demonstrated that government does have an important role in lifting Americans out of poverty. There seemed to be bipartisan support for authentic, meaningful approaches to addressing the plight of poor Americans. I would hope that this sentiment still remains. But if it does, it is not evident in the majority's reconciliation bill that is on the House floor tonight. This bill reduces access to health care for the poor. It contains $11.9 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including cuts of $8.8 billion that are borne by low-income beneficiaries through higher cost-sharing and new premiums. It also gives the States the green light to eliminate periodic health care examinations and the treatment of conditions picked up by those examinations for many of America's neediest children. Maryland's Medicaid rolls cover 430,000 children and health services for 90,000 of them will be jeopardized by this provision. Approximately $2.5 billion of the Medicaid cuts will affect elderly Americans, who will lose access to nursing home care through tougher restrictions on eligibility. This bill reduces access to higher education. It contains $14.3 billion in reductions to Federal student loan programs over 5 years, by increasing the interest rates and imposing a new 1 percent origination fee on all loans. This bill will hurt many families who rely on child support payments. It reduces the Federal match for child support administrative costs from 66 percent to 50 percent, eliminating $4.9 billion in help for the States to enforce child support orders. The majority, which claims to want to help our States, is shifting the cost of enforcement to them. It will not save money in the long run, and it will hurt struggling single parent families across America. As a result of this bill, fewer children in foster care will be eligible for payments, and $577 million will be cut from these funds. This bill will also limit food stamp eligibility to only those households who are receiving cash assistance through TANF, and requires that legal permanent residents live here for 7 years, rather than the current 5 years, before they can receive food stamps. The result will be $844 million less in food stamp assistance to low-income families. The legislation before us is also making it harder for some of the most disadvantaged Americans, those who receive Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to receive assistance. It imposes an extra level of review for certain disability determinations and for those who are found eligible after lengthy delays, this bill requires that retroactive payments are spread out over a longer period of time, for a total savings of $732 million. So in the name of paying for hurricane relief, we cut funding for the programs that would help the neediest Americans, including many of the gulf coast citizens who were affected by that disaster. At this time of economic uncertainty for our country, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act places the burden on the shoulders of the American families least able to carry it. It is clear that this legislation will make painful cuts, and when combined with the tax legislation will increase deficit problems that we face, and so I must vote against it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are considering this resolution today. I am deeply concerned by Russia's failure to effectively confront piracy of DVDs, music, and software. Last year, U.S. companies lost $1.7 billion as a result of Russia's failure to crack down on piracy. This is not a new problem. Each year since 1997, the administration has cited Russia in its annual Special 301 Report for failing to adequately protect and enforce intellectual property rights; and, unfortunately the problem is getting worse rather than better. In 2004, Russia's illegal optical disc production capacity continued to increase so much so that Russia is now supplying other countries with pirated products. Pirated discs produced in Russia have been found in more than 27 countries. The largest commercial Web site of pirated music is also based in Russia, and the Russian prosecutors have refused to initiate a criminal investigation to shut it down. Mr. Speaker, piracy of intellectual property in Russia means lost jobs and opportunities here at home for American workers and businesses, and it must be stopped. I believe that Congress must send a strong message to Russia that the United States will not stand by while Russia robs U.S. workers and businesses of their intellectual property. The resolution we are considering today would put Russia on notice that it risks losing its preferential trade benefits under the GSP program if it fails to improve its protection of intellectual property rights. The resolution also would put Russia on notice that Congress takes its intellectual property rights violations seriously and will consider whether Russia is making meaningful progress on this issue when we consider whether to grant Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations status. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), the co-author of the resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 523, which condemns the recent threats against Israel made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian President recently delared that ``Israel must be wiped off the map,'' described Israel as ``a disgraceful blot [on] the face of the Islamic world,'' and declared that ``[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' I join my collagues in condemning these remarks and threats against the state of Israel. Iran should repudiate these statements. The United Nations Security Council should condemn these statements and censure Iran for its statements and policies aimed at destroying Israel. These despicable comments only serve to legitimize and fuel those that preach hatred and anti-Semitism in the Middle East. Earlier this year we marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camps by Soviet Army troops, which served as a reminder of the consequences of allowing anti-Semitism to flourish. I have worked closely with my colleagues on the U.S. Helsinki Commission and my fellow parliamentarians in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to take measures aimed at eradicating the threat of anti-Semitism and hate throughout the world. In 2004 the OSCE's Conference on Anti-Semitism produced the historic Berlin Declaration which condemns ``without reserve all manifestations of and attacks motivated by anti-Semitism,'' notes that anti-Semitism has ``assumed new forms and expressions . . . which pose a threat to democracy and the values of civilization,'' and ``declares unambiguously that international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.'' Iran has actively supported numerous terrorist groups over the years and has attempted to undermine the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis. Iran has funded suicide bombers and militant organizations that are seeking to kill and maim Israelis, including civilians. Iran is still seeking weapons of mass destruction, and has deceived the internatibnal community in the past about its intentions. Next month the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, will meet on this issue, and I would urge the IAEA to refer this matter to the U.N. Security Council for the consideration of sanctions. The House should also take up and pass legislation to strengthen the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). I was pleased to support the five-year extension of ILSA when it was considered by th House Ways and Means Committee in 2001. H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act would repeal the sunset of ILSA, close some loopholes in ILSA, provide assistance to pro-democracy organizations in Iran, and require ILSA to remain in effect until the President certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently and verifiably dismantled its weapons of mass destruction programs and has committed to combating such weapons' proliferation. I am pleased that the European Union, Canada, and Russia have condemned the remarks of the Irania President. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to work with our allies to promote democracy in Iran, convince Iran to give up its pursuit of WMD, and fight anti-Semitism wherever it arises.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mourn the recent passing of Rabbi Herman N. Neuberger, the president of the Orthodox Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore, Maryland. I have known Rabbi Neuberger for many years and have counted on his friendship and advice. The death of Rabbi Neuberger is a tremendous loss for our entire community. Rabbi Neuberger was one of the foremost leaders of Orthodox Jewry in the United States, and was internationally recognized for his accomplishments. Born in 1918 in Germany, Rabbi Neuberger was the youngest of three children. In 1938 he fled to the United States, on his own, as the Nazi regime began its rise to power in Germany. During World War II he helped to erect Ner Israel's first building on Garrison Boulevard in Baltimore. Rabbi Neuberger affected the lives of many Jews in Baltimore, but he also helped Jews around the world escape from persecution. In 1976 he began bringing young Iranians back to Ner Israel for scholarship, and he encouraged them to return to the Middle East. After the 1979 Iranian revolution, Rabbi Neuberger successfully persuaded the State Department to recognize Iranian Jews as political refugees, which allowed them to enter the United States. Many of the refugees became students of Rabbi Neuberger, who waived tuition for them. The school estimates that over the years roughly 1,000 people were brought to the United States due to the Rabbi's efforts. Throughout his life Rabbi Neuberger also labored mightily to build bridges between different religious communities in Baltimore, understanding the critical importance of strengthening the inter-faith dialogue in this country to confront common problems. Through his work over a half century, the campus expanded to include 90 acres and 800 students. Today Ner Israel teaches Talmudic Law and offers students numerous degrees, including a baccalaureate, master's, doctorate, Rabbinical Ordination and a teacher's diploma. Ner Israel is recognized as an accredited college by the state of Maryland, and its students may take courses at other colleges and universities in the Baltimore region and receive academic credits for their religious studies. Rabbi Neuberger's family also contributed to his legacy at Ner Israel, as he is survived by five sons, three of which teach at the school. Rabbi Neuberger had a tremendous impact on the spiritual, intellectual, and communal lives of thousands of Jews throughout the world. Rabbi Neuberger exemplified what it was to be a rabbi: someone with the wisdom to be a learned teacher and leader. His advice was sought out by community leaders of all faiths, and his wise counsel will be sorely missed.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, Rosa Parks embodied the modern civil rights movement in the United States. Through her quiet determination to challenge a racist law by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, Rosa Parks sparked massive civil disobedience by fellow African-Americans in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. Her arrest led to a year-long bus boycott and ultimately a Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation on buses. In a broader sense Rosa Parks was the conscience of our nation, who forced Americans to confront the racism in our government and society. Her case cried out for action, as our government struggled to implement the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee to provide ``the equal protection of the law'' to all citizens, regardless of race. Civil rights historian and author Taylor Branch described Rosa Parks as a ``tireless worker and churchgoer, of working-class station and middle class demeanor.'' Her case raised the profile of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where she was secretary of the local chapter. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. seized on her case and over the next decade rose to national prominence by leading the effort to enact historic civil rights and voting rights legislation in Congress. America bestowed its highest honors on Rosa Parks later in her life, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Her life and legacy shows us that one person can change the course of history by courageously standing up for what is right. We must honor her legacy by continuing the fight for civil rights and equality under the law, to insure that all Americans, regardless of race, have the opportunity to pursue the blessings of liberty.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Emmett C. Burns, Jr., who is an outstanding delegate to the Maryland House of Delegates and who has been awarded this year's Thurgood Marshall Legacy Award by the Baltimore City Branch of the NAACP. It is most fitting that Emmett Burns is the recipient of an award named for our Nation's first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Thurgood Marshall, who was born in Baltimore, was one of the most important figures in our Nation's struggle for civil rights. As chief attorney for the NAACP, he successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court, ending legalized segregation of our Nation's schools. Since 1995, Emmett Burns has been a leader in the Maryland House of Delegates for the rights of all Marylanders. Most recently, he was instrumental in the enactment of a law to rename Maryland's largest airport the Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport. As former head and lifelong member of the Baltimore NAACP, he has been a role model for the African-American community, providing a strong voice for social justice and equality. I have known Emmett Burns for many years and I consider him a friend whose advice I seek and value. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Del. Emmett C. Burns on being this year's recipient of the Baltimore City NAACP Thurgood Marshall Legacy Award.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for being the leader in this body for us never to forget the Holocaust and the lessons of the Holocaust. Let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on the Helsinki Commission and on the International Relations Committee and speaking up about intolerance and fighting all forms of discrimination. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for his leadership in bringing forward this resolution so that we can spend a few moments to commemorate the life of Simon Wiesenthal. As has been pointed out, Simon Wiesenthal was a survivor from the Holocaust. He lost 89 relatives to the Holocaust and then decided to devote his life to bringing those responsible for the Holocaust to justice. As a result of his work, many people were brought to trial and held accountable for their roles in the Holocaust. It established a legacy that we will never allow people who are responsible for crimes against humanity to go unpunished. Today, we have permanent centers for tolerance that Simon Wiesenthal was responsible for establishing. I have the honor of being the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is our chairman. We are inspired by Mr. Wiesenthal's work in our fight to end all forms of intolerance and discrimination, including anti-Semitism; and we worked with Simon Wiesenthal in mind to establish international priorities to fight anti-Semitism. Our conference in Berlin in 2004 and the OSCE's 2005 conference in Cordoba, Spain in which the Simon Wiesenthal Center was a leading participant, all this helps develop the legacy of Simon Wiesenthal. Civilized nations must pursue all those who promote or carry out acts of anti-Semitism, intolerance, or crimes against humanity. Politicians, teachers, and community leaders have an obligation to speak out against promoters of hate. Only through our continued vigilance can we ensure justice, deter future war crimes, and send the message that political and military leaders that promote or condone acts of genocide will face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. This is how we should remember and honor Simon Wiesenthal's legacy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to express concern about the legislation we are considering. I heard the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) talk about the fact that we would like to do better. But let me just point out that we have $25 billion in a Federal unemployment trust account today. Those funds should be used for emergency circumstances. If there was ever an emergency, what happened to the workers of those three States as a result of Katrina is clearly an emergency. This is the time that we should be releasing unemployment moneys so that we can extend benefits beyond the statutory period that is currently in law. Through no fault of their own, the victims of Katrina are unable to find employment, and we should be able to provide extended benefits. And the funds are there in the Federal unemployment trust account. So quite frankly, I do not understand what the delay is. The people are hurting. We should be doing everything we can to help, and I would expect that we would have had a stronger bill come out that would protect the workers who cannot find employment. So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have a bill before us that obviously is an important bill to move forward because it provides relief by extension of several programs that are important to the people that are affected by this, but I really do believe that we should be looking at a comprehensive approach to deal with people who have been victimized. Unfortunately, this bill does not really do it for those people who are unemployed, have exhausted their benefits and are looking to the Federal Government for help.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Elaine K. Freeman, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Johns Hopkins Medicine upon her retirement after 23 years. Elaine epitomizes what is best in corporate communications--she fully understands Johns Hopkins Medicine and she has the skills and ability to communicate the success of Hopkins to the public. During her tenure, Elaine has seen Hopkins become nationally ranked as the number one medical facility in the nation, according to the U.S. News and World Report. In 1989, she also helped Hopkins celebrate its centennial as one of the Nation's most outstanding medical institutions. Elaine is a gifted professional who understands that the strengths of Hopkins rest with its staff and faculty. Over the years, she has helped the public understand and relate to the important medical advances that come out of Hopkins, enabling people to understand the relationship between research and the impact on patients. Elaine is unique in that she truly understands the medical community, and the importance of scientific research. She is married to Dr. John Freeman, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics. In 1969, John joined Hopkins to create and direct the Johns Hopkins Child Neurology program. In 1958, Elaine graduated from Goucher College as a Phi Beta Kappa. She also earned a masters degree from George Washington University. In 2001, she received the Excellence in Medical Education Public Affairs award from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in wishing Elaine Freeman a happy and healthy retirement. Her skill and dedication to communicating medical developments has helped the public gain a greater understanding of medical issues.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for his leadership in focusing what we can do to help the victims of Katrina. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) for his leadership on the committee. This is exactly what we need to do. Obviously, all of us were devastated by what happened with Katrina and the failure of our government to respond in a timely and effective way, and people who were vulnerable paid a very heavy price. What this bill does is try to deal with the problems of the victims of Katrina by looking at our Tax Code. Our first priority today must be to help those who were devastated by Katrina, and this bill looks at the Tax Code to find ways in which we can be helpful. I applaud the specific provisions that are in it because I think it will help. To deal with the practical problems such as residency, people who now live in different parts of the country would not comply with the technical requirements in our Tax Code on residency, which is required to take advantage of some of the tax provisions. This bill provides the needed relief. Our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), talked about the Earned Income Tax Credit, a very important tool to help low- wage families in this Nation. This bill will make sure that those who are entitled to that relief, who were affected by Katrina, will continue to be able to receive that help. Along with the forgiveness of loans which is taking place, if we do not pass this bill, there could be tax consequences to that. We provide incentives in this bill for individuals who have opened up their homes to take in those who are now without a home, and we provide full deductibility for personal casualty losses, as we should. For job opportunity, we expand the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, as we should do, and we now make it easier for individuals to be able to give cash donations to the victims of Katrina. Bottom line, Madam Speaker, is this bill takes care of some of the practical problems that our Tax Code could not anticipate as a result of Katrina, and I want to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for expediting the process to bring this bill forward so that we can try, in a constructive way, to make it easier for those who were victimized by this horrible hurricane.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when you have underfunded programs that have too many mandates on the States to use the funds with too many restrictions, what ends up is that people who are vulnerable, who are at risk are the most likely to get hurt by these underfunded programs. Hurricane Katrina showed us in graphic detail the people who were victimized because we did not adequately fund programs and government. I support this legislation, but much of what is in here should have been done prior to now. For example, this will be the 11th temporary extension of the TANF program. We should have reauthorized the TANF program well before this day. We talked about a 20 percent increase in funding in certain States. Well, just the cost-of-living changes since when this bill was first enacted in 1996 would have eaten up that amount. We should have adjusted the amounts well before this, not just for the affected States but for all the States in this Nation. I am pleased to hear the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means indicate that there will be other legislation, because I agree with the gentleman that the unemployment insurance issues, with 11,000 people running close to the exhaustion of benefits, need to be addressed; and I look forward to working with the chairman so we can deal with the unemployment insurance, which was not necessarily anticipated except by this storm. Let me say in regards to the foster care children, which are also under the jurisdiction of our committee, foster children are our responsibility. They are now being scattered to many States around the Nation. We have a responsibility to make it easier for these foster children to be cared for during this period. I say to the chairman, I hope we will be able to work on a bill related to foster care. Let me lastly mention child care, because there are not going to be enough funds available to our States to take care of the increased needs for child care in our communities. I hope our committee will also deal with that issue.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of September 11, 2001 has been seared in our Nation's consciousness forever. On this fourth anniversary of the attack on our Nation, I want to take this opportunity to remember the brave men and women who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a deserted field in the Pennsylvania countryside. That day, 3,000 Americans died at the hands of terrorists who would see our country destroyed. These fellow citizens were casualties in our Nation's continuing effort to maintain liberty, safety, and freedom for all Americans. While we suffered a grievous loss that day, we must remember that we are a strong and determined Nation that will defeat those who would harm us. We join together to make it clear to the world that our Nation is united and resolved to defend our freedom against any enemy. Today, we stop to remember those who perished on 9/11 and to remember their families with a special prayer. We also pause to reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers and city officials who died in the line of duty trying to save others. Each of us is personally affected by September 11. While we might not know anyone personally who died, we still grieve for them. And we hold the members of their families close to our hearts.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the comments made during the colloquy between the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, and the gentlemen from Utah, Mr. Bishop, regarding H.R. 3283. In particular, I would like to respond to my colleagues' assertions concerning the application of section 3(b )(2) of the Act, which states that when applying the U.S. countervailing duty law to nonmarket economies, the Department of Commerce ``shall ensure that . . . the application [of the law] is consistent with the international obligations of the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, despite my colleagues' efforts to provide reassurance about this provision, I remain deeply concerned following their exchange--and in some ways, even more so. First, the exchange between Mr. Bishop and Mr. English provides no comfort to those like me that have raised concerns that section 3(b)(2) of the Act will have a chilling effect on the application of U.S. countervailing duty law. The provision clearly creates a special burden on the U.S. Department of Commerce in cases involving subsidies in nonmarket economy countries like China by requiring Commerce to make a determination about the WTO consistency of the law prior to applying it. In every other trade remedy case, the Department of Commerce must apply U.S. law as enacted by Congress. The law is presumed to be consistent with WTO obligations unless the WTO finds otherwise. Under Mr. English's bill, Commerce could not apply countervailing duty laws to China and other nonmarket economies to the fullest extent authorized by Congress, but rather could apply the law only to the extent to which Commerce makes a separate determination that the law would pass muster in the WTO. As a result, it is likely that Commerce would not apply the law as intended by Congress, thereby denying American workers and businesses a remedy authorized by both WTO rules and U.S. law. Second, and even more importantly, section 3(b)(2) of the English bill raises Constitutional issues. After the provision has been applied in a CVD investigation and were a WTO panel to rule against some aspect of the provision, the English bill would create the first directive under U.S. law that WTO decisions are to be self-implementing. The English bill creates this self-implementing provision by directing Commerce to ``ensure that the application [of the provision] is consistent'' with WTO rules. In all other cases under U.S. AD/CVD law, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (section 129) creates a procedure for congressional consultation prior to Commerce or USTR taking any action to alter U.S. law, regulation or practice. While Congress technically would not have to approve a change to regulation or practice, in practice, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations has ever even suggested that it would make such a change absent (bicameral and bipartisan) congressional approval. The inclusion language in the English bill authorizing, if not directing, Commerce to change regulation or practice even absent Congressional approval undermines the broader statutory scheme carefully established in 1994, shifts the balance of action for implementing WTO decisions that affect one provision of the AD/CVD laws toward the Administration, and erodes further congressional authority over the unfair trade laws. In simple terms, section 3(b)(2) of the English bill authorizes Commerce to take action to align U.S. law with the decisions of a WTO panel or Appellate Body--without the assent of Congress as provided under existing U.S. law (in the case of Commerce, changes to regulation or practice). Mr. Speaker, section 3(b)(2) of H.R. 3283 is bad policy and may be unconstitutional as a matter of law. By requiring the Department of Commerce to ensure WTO compliance before acting on Chinese subsidies, the bill would prevent the Administration from vigorously enforcing our trade laws. In addition, the provision violates traditional notions of separation of powers by specifically directing the Department of Commerce to take steps to alter the application of U.S. law without an act of Congress.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Charles ``Ted'' Herget, Jr., a Baltimore businessman and philanthropist who has served on the Villa Julie College Board of Trustees since 1975, and has chaired the Board since 2002. In his 30 years of service to Villa Julie, Ted Herget has been instrumental in helping build the college into a highly regarded institution of higher learning in the Baltimore area. In those first years, Villa Julie was a young institution that awarded only associate degrees. Since then, its 400 students have grown to approximately 2,500 students, and Villa Julie now confers four-year degrees, specializing in career-focused and adult-accelerated programs. As co-founder and principal of Asset Strategy Consultants, Ted Herget has used his financial acumen to benefit Villa Julie College. He was the first chairman of the finance committee and in that role stressed the need to invest the college's money for the future. He also helped to develop the benefit structure and retirement plans that are still in place. In addition to his work with Villa Julie, Ted Herget has a long history of civic leadership. He has served on numerous boards in the Baltimore metropolitan area and is recognized as a committed and dedicated community leader. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the enormous impact that Ted Herget has had on the success and growth of Villa Julie College. Many people are responsible for Villa Julie's achievements, but Ted Herget certainly tops the list.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 19, which recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. The President issued a proclamation on August 1, 2005 which celebrated this important anniversary. I am privileged to serve as the Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, formally known as the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Commission encourages compliance with the Helsinki Final Act by the 55 nations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is the largest regional security organization in the world. The United States has actively participated in the Helsinki process since its inception 30 years ago. Today we acknowledge and celebrate that participation. This resolution recalls the importance of the Helsinki process in promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law within the OSCE. The Helsinki process consists of three ``baskets'' of rights which are essential to security: political, economic, and human rights. Our Commission is unusual in that it is an independent Federal agency which has both the legislative and executive branches working together side by side. I have greatly appreciated this opportunity to work as equal partners in the Helsinki process, which I think has frankly increased our effectiveness on a number of issues within the OSCE region. I have enjoyed working with our colleagues on the International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, as well as with my Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Chris Smith and Chairman Sam Brownback from the Senate. Our work on the Helsinki Commission is bipartisan, and I do not think I can ever recall a moment in my entire service on this Commission where we have had a partisan difference. Our bipartisan record has led to numerous accomplishments on critical issues in the OSCE. The OSCE is perhaps best known for leading election monitoring missions to insure free and fair elections in emerging democracies in Europe and Eurasia. The Helsinki process allowed many Jews to leave the former Soviet Union. Today the Helsinki process has taken the lead in fighting the growing scourge of anti-Semitism in Europe, culminating in an unprecedented conference on anti-Semitism and the issuance of the Berlin Declaration, which adopts a number of concrete commitments for States to fight anti-Semitism. I am also privileged to serve as the Chairman of the economic committee of the Parliamentary Assembly (PA) of the OSCE, which has focused on anti-corruption measures and the promotion of small businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities. I commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, for his excellent leadership of the OSCE PA as the first American to serve as President of this organization. Earlier this year Chairman Smith and I visited Ukraine to meet with the new democratic government. Many of the former Soviet republics are still struggling today with their transition to a democratic form of government, and the OSCE plays an integral role in assisting these governments in establishing the rule of law. Many challenges remain for the Helsinki process, but today we celebrate its rich legacy and record of accomplishments. I look forward to using the Helsinki process as we confront the new political, economic, and human rights challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have suffered through the catastrophic event of Hurricane Katrina. I also rise today in support of the $10 billion supplemental spending bill to help deal with the ravages left in its wake. This category 4 Hurricane has laid waste to our Gulf Coast region, including the city of New Orleans. Today, I am outraged, outraged at the failure of our Federal Government to have planned for and adequately responded to a disaster we all knew could happen. I join millions of Americans who have been stunned by the television coverage showing the desperation of thousands and thousands of our citizens and the failure of our Government to provide them with essential services--food, water, medical care, and sanitary conditions. Today, I want to talk about the situation in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and the immense suffering and desperation that the people there are experiencing. It has been 5 days since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the region and yet tens of thousands of Americans are without food and water. Lawlessness has settled in New Orleans and we have not provided the support necessary to secure the region. Tens of thousands of citizens are still stranded in shelters and we have not been able to evacuate them to safer areas; and thousands of residents of New Orleans are in need of rescue from their flood-filled homes and we have not mobilized the personnel necessary to search for them and bring them to safety. Today, as thousands of residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region face the possibility of death, I am outraged that the Federal Government failed to adequately plan for the hurricane as it approached this very vulnerable region. Last Friday, the hurricane's potential danger was clear, yet we did a poor job of getting resources in place. After the hurricane struck, we did not activate the full resources of the Federal Government to assist the region. Instead, we relied on local and State governments, entities that were clearly overwhelmed and did not have the resources necessary to deal with a catastrophe of this magnitude. Today, I am outraged at the failure of government to protect our citizens. Last year, James Lee Witt, former head of FEMA, testified before a congressional hearing, saying: ``I am extremely concerned that the ability of our Nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from the emergency managers, local and State leaders and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared.'' Today, we must bring the full weight of the Federal Government to bear in this crisis. I call on the Federal Government to send in the necessary personnel to rescue those in need and to restore order to the region. I also call on the Federal Government to open its facilities in order to share the burden of providing temporary housing for those who have been displaced. Once we deal with the human tragedy that is now taking place, I call for congressional hearings that will examine what went wrong. Why our most vulnerable citizens were left to fend for themselves and why an entire region was not prepared for such a catastrophic event. I also call for congressional hearings to investigate the gas gouging that has spread across the Nation--taking advantage of human tragedy to make a profit. Hurricane Katrina has inflicted grievous pain on our country. I want to be sure that in the future we are prepared to deal effectively and competently with any catastrophic event that should occur.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Samuel Shapiro & Company on its 90th anniversary. Based in Baltimore, Maryland, Samuel Shapiro & Company is one of the leading customs brokers in the United States. Samuel Shapiro & Company was founded in August 1915 by Sam Shapiro-- the hardworking son of Russian immigrants. In its first year of business, Samuel Shapiro & Company's books showed a net cash position of only $46.50. Undeterred, Sam Shapiro kept on working, building up his company through two World Wars and the Great Depression. After the end of World War II, Samuel Shapiro & Company began to expand, opening up offices in Norfolk, Dulles and Baltimore-Washington (then Friendship) Airport. The company was passed on to Sam Shapiro's son Sigmund who guided it through the many technological transformations of the second half of the 20th century. The new millennium has brought a new generation of Shapiro family members to manage the expanding company, which now has eight offices from New York to Savannah. Sig Shapiro's son Robert is now the company's lawyer and his daughter Majorie has taken his place as President & CEO. Under Majorie Shapiro, Samuel Shapiro & Company has maintained its reputation for delivering the highest quality of personalized customer service while using the most modern techniques available to provide that service. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting this third generation family business that has provided 90 years of the highest quality service to customers while maintaining a reputation as a model corporate citizen.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I support reform of our nation's medical liability system. I also believe that doctors and medical institutions who are experiencing unsustainable increases in their malpractice premiums deserve relief. Before coming to Congress, as Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, I worked to craft legislation that brought significant changes at the state level, including reasonable caps on non-economic damages. It worked well to hold down the cost of premiums and make our State's malpractice system a much fairer one. The problems in our Nation's medical liability system require a multi-faceted approach that includes addressing the causes of premium increases, reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits, and limiting the number of medical errors. I support enacting fair reforms that will continue to permit injured patients to hold wrongdoers accountable, and I am willing to support legislation that provides for reasonable caps on non-economic and punitive damages. In recent years, I have seen so-called malpractice ``reform'' bills come to the floor of this House. Those bills provided an inequitable approach--limiting patients' access to the courts and imposing strict limits on compensation for their injuries, no matter how serious the injury or how egregious the malpractice, while doing nothing to lower malpractice premiums. Fortunately, they were not enacted into law. I had hoped that this year's legislation would be the product of careful deliberation at the committee level. I had hoped that the authors would take into consideration the rights of patients and balance them carefully with the need to alleviate the burden of escalating malpractice insurance costs. Unfortunately, once again this year, the bill before us does neither. In fact, the leadership has simply rolled out a bill that is nearly identical to the one we considered in the last Congress. There were no hearings, no markups, and today, there are no opportunities to amend the bill. The same bill, the same bill number, the same disregard for the rights of patients, the same ineffectual approach to helping physicians. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a few aspects of this bill. First, this bill contains an arbitrary cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages. Non-economic awards compensate patients and their families for real injuries, and sharply capping them will disproportionately hurt families, children, seniors, and others who have lower or fixed incomes. Second, H.R. 5 provides a shield against punitive damages for manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices as long as they have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At one time, the FDA shield might have been less controversial. After all, the FDA has long been considered the gold standard for prescription drug quality and safety, and for years its seal of approval was viewed by the American public as a guarantee that drugs were safe. But in light of developments related to several other pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA, this provision is truly baffling. Cases involving life- threatening complications from these drugs have raised fundamental questions about the safety determinations made by the FDA. In 2004, the Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings to examine safety Issues surrounding the prescribing of antidepressants to children. At that time, several members of the Committee criticized the FDA for failing to take prompt action to address these concerns. Last September, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking the drug for more than 18 months. Since then, it has been reported that more than 130,000 persons have suffered heart attacks as a result of taking Vioxx. Richard Matthews of Thurmont, Maryland, was one of the first reported fatalities from Vioxx. According to an Associated Press account, Richard's wife, Lisa, said her husband had no previous heart problems and died in 2002 at age 42 of a heart arrhythmia only a few days after he began taking Vioxx. Several Congressional committees have responded to these events by initiating investigations of drug safety issues, including the FDA's procedures for evaluating the safety of prescription drugs. Given the questions that have arisen about FDA's effectiveness, it is truly astonishing that the leadership is here promoting a bill that prohibits the awarding of any punitive damages and limits non-economic damages for drugs and devices approved by the FDA. This bill, H.R. 5, was referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the same committee that acknowledged problems at the FDA. Did the committee's members try to amend this bill to strike or tone down the FDA provision? There was no opportunity. H.R. 5 was introduced one week ago, July 21, referred to the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees, which did not hold a hearing or mark-up, and then brought to the floor today. The FDA shield is an irresponsible provision that should have been stricken from this bill. We have no opportunity to strike it today, because an amendment that would have done so was not made in order by the Rules Committee. It may endanger the health and lives of thousands of Americans. It will certainly deny them the opportunity to receive fair compensation when they are injured. Third, I firmly believe that we must reduce medical errors in our health care system if we are to reduce the number of malpractice cases. It has been nearly six years since the 1999 report of the Institute of Medicine, IOM, entitled ``To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System.'' That report focused a great deal of attention on the issue of medical errors and patient safety. IOM estimated that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die in hospitals each year as the result of medical errors. Even using the lower estimate, this would make medical errors the eighth leading cause of death in this country, higher than motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. This House has just passed S. 544, legislation intended to reduce medical errors and improve patient safety. But its passage by a nearly unanimous vote of 428 to 3 is a clear indication that Congress knows there are valid cases whose victims deserve their day in court. The patient safety bill has not yet been signed into law. I hope it will be law soon, and that it will help improve patient safety. But each case is an individual case, and those who are harmed by medical errors deserve just compensation for their injuries. Finally, I must question why the authors of this bill are not addressing malpractice insurance premium increases in this bill. The provisions of H.R. 5 would not reduce the rates that insurance companies charge providers. We have an alternative that would directly address the problems of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses. But once again this year, the base bill, H.R. 5, contains no provisions that will lower malpractice premiums. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, malpractice premium costs are the reason that providers ask me to support medical malpractice reform. These are practitioners who truly love their professions, and they are troubled by dramatic increases in their malpractice rates, increases that they must pay whether or not there have been any malpractice claims filed against them in the past year. They say that they want to continue practicing medicine next year, but they may not be able to afford to. When I ask if they would like to see provisions in the bill that limit their premium increases, they emphatically reply yes. So it is puzzling that this bill, which the authors say was written to help physicians stay in business, fails to address their central concern by even monitoring insurance companies' rate hikes. In fact, there are no provisions anywhere in the bill that affect malpractice insurers. In sum, H.R. 5 represents a missed opportunity for this House. We could have produced a bill that would truly make a difference, in lowering malpractice premiums, in placing reasonable caps on non- economic damages. I am disappointed that we don't have a better bill, a more responsible bill that we can vote on today. I urge my colleagues to reject this approach, which will do nothing to improve access to care, nothing to hold insurance companies accountable for premium increases, and nothing to make our nation's medical liability system more fair.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to clarify the record. The provision that we have in our legislation on China currency is to direct that a claim be brought within the WTO, not inconsistent with the WTO, so that we would use the dispute settlement resolution process within the WTO, which is certainly within the rights that we have. I just really wanted to clarify the record on currency manipulation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the only opportunity we have is on a motion to recommit, and this motion to recommit will deal with the currency manipulation issue with China, and will take real action on China's currency manipulation. Since 1994, China has pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar. This policy has caused China's currency to become undervalued by as much as 40 percent. What this means in practice is that Chinese manufacturers have a significant unfair advantage over U.S. manufacturers because China's currency manipulation makes Chinese exports to the United States cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive. It is simply unacceptable that this administration has allowed China to continue this policy, and the Chinese Government appears to realize that this administration is not serious about stopping China's currency manipulation. Just last year when the vice governor of the People's Bank of China was asked when China would change its currency policy, he stated, ``China has 8,000 years of history. One year, three years, five years, or ten years, for Chinese, that is just a twinkling of an eye.'' Now I know that the administration and many of those on the opposite side of the aisle will point to the fact that China reevaluated its currency by about 2 percent last week. However, I would urge them to read the report in today's Washington Post and New York Times indicating that China's Central Bank issued a statement yesterday to clarify that last week's change was a one-time event, and that we should not expect more changes any time soon. China's continuing refusal to end its currency manipulation demands action by this body. However, the bill before us today, H.R. 3283, calls on one more report and another delay. The Treasury Department has already issued reports on Chinese currency and has not taken any action. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues talk about taking action against China during this debate. Here is an opportunity to do that. What this motion to recommit would do would be to bring the bill immediately back with an amendment that would have the administration file a WTO claim. That is consistent with the WTO. It starts the process. It tells China we are serious. It does not do anything in violation of the WTO. It starts the process, but it tells China that this body is serious about their dealing with their currency issue. That is what China understands. We cannot justify tying a currency to another currency. That is manipulation. That is working to the disadvantage of American manufacturers. I would hope that we could join together. I have heard many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues tell me it is time to take action against China. This does it in a responsible way. It does not require any tariff; it does not do anything inconsistent with the WTO obligations. It exercises the constitutional responsibility that we have on trade. It is the legislative branch that is responsible for trade. We delegate to the executive branch. We should be willing to assume our responsibility. If Members believe it is wrong for China to continue to manipulate its currency to the disadvantage of U.S. manufacturers and producers and employment here in this Nation, vote for the motion to recommit so we can finally start action against China on currency manipulation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I normally am in agreement with my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, when it comes to antidumping and countervailing duty laws. We have worked together to try to improve those laws. But I disagree with him in regards to this legislation. Madam Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman's assessment of this legislation. I think it is an inconsequential bill. I do not believe it will do very much one way or the other. It will certainly not hold China accountable. There is nothing in this bill that would hold China accountable for its violations of its international trade obligations. So, Madam Speaker, let me try to get the Members to focus on what is in this bill and not what people who may be coming to this well say is in this bill. I would urge my colleagues to please read the legislation that is before us. It is not the original bill that was filed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a bill that was supported by the industry, that would have extended countervailing duty laws to China and nonmarket economies. Instead, what this bill does in section 2 is a ``sense of Congress.'' Now, a sense of Congress resolution is exactly that. It expresses our concerns, but takes no action. The first section that takes any action at all in changing law is section 3, and section 3 does deal with the countervailing duty provisions. It extends countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. That is good. Countervailing duties are imposed when a country inappropriately subsidizes its products that go into international trade. And China and nonmarket economies should be held to our countervailing duty laws. Unfortunately, they are not today. The problem is that the amended bill then puts 2 hurdles in being able to apply those countervailing duty provisions. It first does what is known as double-counting and prevents from using on the countervailing duties the import and export subsidies by the country involved. Now, that is a different standard than we have for market economies, where you only have to double-count export subsidies. The change here is dramatic, and that is why the industries that are affected by the countervailing duty statute that we would hope would help in regards to China oppose this provision. Nu Car, which is one of the companies that asked us to apply the countervailing duty law to China, has written us in opposition to this section, because it will not help them remedy the situation of subsidized product coming from China into the United States. That is why the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, the committee of business groups that have joined together in order to strengthen our antidumping and countervailing duty laws, oppose this section. It will not help companies that are hurt by subsidized, manufactured product coming into the United States. That is section 3. That is why I say, you try to help in one respect, but you take it away by putting obstacles in the way. You also put a second test that is not currently required, a certification of compliance of international law. That is not required today for a market economy violation for us to file a countervailing duty claim. That is section 3. Let us go to section 4. Section 4 deals with the new shipper review amendment. Well, here we have a problem with Chinese exporters who are not getting an adequate security when they come into our market. You provided a temporary fix for 3 years. We should do it permanently. It should be done permanently. Going to section 5, section 5 talks about monitoring compliance with the People's Republic of China with international trade obligations. Read what is here. There is no action. There is review, but no action. We should not be doing this now, the review. The administration does this already. There is nothing new that is added to the requirements that we are going to be able to take action against China for violating intellectual property rights or access to market for services, or access to market for goods. We should be taking action under our safeguards in that regard. But no, there is no action at all taken in section 5. If I am wrong, please correct me on this point. Then we move to section 6. Section 6 is probably the most egregious section in the bill: report on currency manipulation by foreign countries. Read it. It is only a couple lines. You are asking Treasury to define currency manipulation. We have already had Treasury report to us and fail to take action against China. China is manipulating its currency. We all know that. So why do we not take action against China? No. This bill does, again, nothing in regards to China currency. Then, in section 7, you talk about providing more money for the USTR. You are not providing more money for the USTR. The amount that you have here in authorized levels has already been provided in the appropriations bill. There is no new money here. Then, in section 8, you talk about more money for the U.S. International Trade Commission. Again, it is equal to the amount that we have already provided through the appropriation process. There is no new money here in either section 7 or section 8. I want to give you credit in section 9, talking about sense of Congress regarding the expansion of membership in the agreement on government procurement of the WTO. I support that section. I think we should be asking for broader participation in government procurement under the WTO. No action here again, strictly a sense of Congress. So, Madam Speaker, I take this time to go through section by section because I challenge Members who come and speak on this bill to please speak about the facts of what is in this bill. There are only two sections that actually provide any change in law or action. One deals with countervailing duty, and I have already pointed out how there is negative along with the positive, and the other deals with a temporary fix of the exporter license issue, which is certainly not the major problem that we are having with China today. As I said earlier, this bill is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity because the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body would like to vote on a bill that would provide real relief to the problems that we have in China living up to its international trade responsibilities. That legislation just happens to be H.R. 3306, which has been introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I regret that we do not have an opportunity to debate that bill and do what is right for the people of this country in enforcing our trade rules against the People's Republic of China. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.